Well, that's the thing about child sex offenders. they all have friends and family members. And when they're arrested, often caught in the act, their friends and family rarely say "Oh, I suspected him all along." They invariably say "No way, he couldn't have, it's a set up!"

Why are you attempting to defend someone that chose to have sexual relations with a minor.

Do you know that he chose to have sexual relations with a minor? Is there even a small chance it is a set-up? Seems a bit naive to have convicted him already. If he did it then yes he will go to jail in Cambodia and the US, we all know that. But maybe it's prudent to determine first whether or not he did it...

All I said is, I hope for a unbiased trial because he deserves it. If he really committed the crime, he needs to pay for it. Period.

That's not "all you said . . . period." What you actually said in your post that I responded to is that the girls were whores and he donated his legal services and this should be considered when evaluating his character.

Gavin Mac - in an equivalent case in the US courts, wouldn't the character of both parties be considered by a jury and judge?

LonelyPlanet, you claim to be Cambodian, but you haven’t really said anything that makes us think you’re actually Cambodian, haven’t spoken of specific Cambodian things or the language, etc. Where did you grow up and what language did you speak at home?

I was thinking the same, other than stating that they were Cambodian and how shameful it was in society here for young women to be out enticing poor sex-tourists into breaking laws. I call bullshit on Lonelyplanet. And who the hell even buys those books or considers them great travel guides anymore? That's some old-man speak.

Dallow Spicer wrote:I was given a tip off about such a thing, where members of a pedo forum discussed many SEA expat sites including K440 and exchanged advise on how to enter the forum, how to go softly softly in the first few months, and then step up the pedo apologist agenda oh so discretely. Several members of that forum made their way here. They were stomped on and banned immediately they showed their faces.

This goes way back to when this site started. This site was originally set up, pre Facebook, as a way for the founder to keep in touch with family, friends etc, and obviously quickly grew beyond that. It always had a cheeky style, and it was understood that most posters were far from being angels, but weren't completely depraved either.

There were a few similar sites in terms of format around at the time. One was KM11.com , named after the local designation for the notorious Svay Pak brothel village off NR 5. The posts were nearly all advice on the cheapest brothels or "trip reports" about them.
Some posters from here went on there and started asking them basic questions and criticizing their ethos and so a bit of competition started.

They would start posting innocently on 440 and then start making creepy posts and eventually just told to can it or fuck off. Then this whole thing started on their site about how 440 were all puritanical NGO do-gooders etc! In their world anyone who isn't actively whoring 24-7 is some kind of agent who wants to shut down their fun for the feminazis.
So they had a constant stream of assholes coming over here and sneaking in by sounding reasonable at first and then gradually posting more and more dodgy content.

That site eventually disappeared due to its connections with a notorious brothel area that became synonymous with child prostitution. So they all migrated to a new site called GGC. You had to give a cover story to be allowed to even view this message board but it wasn't hard to get through. To be fair most of the content was about honest-to-goodness whoring with adult women but it very much objectified people and encouraged exploitation and abuse.

And Gavin Mac what would be more impressive would be if you could find out who Russell Tuanavan is. You know that is not a Cambodian first or last name - why would he be filing a complaint with the police about the American guy?

And isn't the entire story premised on what the two girls have said - I don't see where it says he was caught doing anything?

Well, that's the thing about child sex offenders. they all have friends and family members. And when they're arrested, often caught in the act, their friends and family rarely say "Oh, I suspected him all along." They invariably say "No way, he couldn't have, it's a set up!"

What about the presumption of innocence?

Thanks! Exactly my points. Some automatically presumed that he is a pedophile before he is even in trial; and choose to trust everything these girls said, ignoring all the red flags; all the illogic claims and signs; just because they said these girls are “children”. I do think children don’t lie. But these girls are near 15 yo; they are teenagers. These are not innocent children. And they are caught lying at least in one of the claims. If they are all honest in what they said, I’ll 100% support them.

Before someone throws stones at me; I’m NOT saying that it is ok to have sex with them. I’m talking about the honesty of their statements.

I find it funny that some of you accusing me of defending a pedophile; while for the whole time I just try to point out that this man might be accused of something that he did not commit or at least unknowingly committed.
I could ask the same question; why are you defending liars?

Also, some of you disregard my valid questions and arguments; but rather trying to divert the arguments to invalid and irrelevant points such as whether or not I am not a Cambodia native as claimed and my link to the pedophiles (laughing here because in fact I am a woman - and I never said and also will never defend a pedophile). Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. And, don’t forget, at the end of the day, only Jesus Christ can judge.

If they are abused by the accused, it is horrible, if they have been coerced by their parents into a scam, that is also horrible. If they have been prostituted by adults yet had no contact with the accused, that is still horrible. Whatever the scenario it is awful for the children and posters feel compassion for them as they understand this.

You do not appear have that same understanding, any empathy at all, which makes posters wary of your motivations and query your claimed Cambodian credentials.

Why are you attempting to defend someone that chose to have sexual relations with a minor.

I hope nobody is defending kiddie fiddlers, but rule of law has to be innocent until proven guilty, not mob violence and internet assumed guilt.
He might well have done this so been an easy target for the parents to extort money, or he might have been an innocent tourist that just gave the girls a few dollars because he felt sorry for them, but that left him trapped.
Equally, he could be a nasty perv that got nabbed and deserves whatever happens.
Point is, we have no way to know at the moment.

We simply don't know but one thing is absolute - You're going to look really stupid if he is innocent and it's just a set up.
Let's face it, it's hardly impossible.

However, if he is guilty, I'll all for the rusty penknife and whip combination of punishments.

I have no clue if he paid for sex with these four kids or not, but I'm pretty sure he was set up as far as the charges go.

WTF? "I don't know if he had sex with girls under age 15 but he was 'set up' when he was arrested for having sex with underage girls"?

Having sex with 12-14 year old girls is a crime. Even if they are tattooed. Even if their parents sell them to you. Even if they are out late at night. Even if they are little whores who are asking for the sex.

What is wrong with people?

It's called fairness.

Scenario.
Tourist flashes cash, accidentally or showing off.
Pimp/father sees an angle
Sends girls to him begging for cash
He feels sorry for them and hands over a few dollars
Pimp/dad gets his name and hotel by conversation
Pimp/dad knows bent cop

Stitch up.

Equally he could have pumped the girls all night so deserves a serious hammering, but we simply don't know, so that makes your assumption of guilt extremely insensitive and nothing more than an internet keyboard warrior job.

Yes, there are plenty of nasty sods out there that do mess with kids, but we don't know if he's one of them or not.

I remember the first time I was propositioned by a ladyboy. I had absolutely no clue how to handle the situation, so I defaulted to British manners, but that was taken as a positive because I wasn't forceful enough in my answer.
This guy might well have been similarly unsure when confronted so it's hopelessly unreasonable to assume guilt.

That assumption also requires that absolute belief the pimp/parents are honest, and the local cops aren't corrupt.

How many morally perfect pimps are out there, and are any Cambodian cops corrupt?

As some less than bright posters are likely to accuse me of supporting kiddie fiddlers, I'll be clear.
As the daddy of two young kids, I'd kill any bugger that touched them, so you can be assured I have no love for anyone that engages in these especially nasty crimes.

Why are you attempting to defend someone that chose to have sexual relations with a minor.

I hope nobody is defending kiddie fiddlers, but rule of law has to be innocent until proven guilty, not mob violence and internet assumed guilt.

You claim some of us are presuming guilt.

Yet you are presuming innocence.

Are both sides not presumptuous?

You remind me of the anti-capital punishment brigade, who will defend some itinerant, self-confessed heroin pusher who got caught with 3 kg in the Philippines, but say nada about several kids being shot for throwing stones in Gaza. Fake liberalism.

Using ad hominem against people who dare to point out your obvious bias isn't a great intellectual trait, either.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I wonder why?

I suppose if the suspect is found guilty your next argument will be that he was set up, yes?

>
0

Last edited by vladimir on Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Equally he could have pumped the girls all night so deserves a serious hammering, but we simply don't know, so that makes your assumption of guilt extremely insensitive and nothing more than an internet keyboard warrior job.

Yes, there are plenty of nasty sods out there that do mess with kids, but we don't know if he's one of them or not.

Where did I assume he was guilty? I was simply challenging your statement that you were "pretty sure" he was set up.